Remember all those who denied that firearms confiscation as a result of New Yorks new gun laws was too insane to even consider?

That it was strictly in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the it cant happen here crowd?

Those were and remain some of the standard replies to anyone who even thought about the possibility, let alone gave voice to it, despite the fact that Gov Cuomo and numerous other officials made public comments about such a plan, as I discussed in my article Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back .

Elected Officials, the media, various Gun Control Groups and their zealous forced disarmament supporters, even some firearms owners themselves all insisted it was to crazy to even consider.

Theres just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!

It seems those that tried desperately to warn of such an insidious plot had hit the bullseye with their warnings after all. News came from multiple NY State based firearms enthusiast websites late Friday that confiscations of Pistol Owner ID Cards, as well as firearms and accessories has commenced in NY under the provisions of the horribly flawed, draconian and blatantly unconstitutional NY SAFE Act.

Those folks having their weapons and FID cards confiscated have been discovered to have been prescribed multiple different types of psychotropic drugs, such as those for Depression or Anxiety. These are known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) class drugs and have the potential to cause serious and adverse side effects, something I wrote about extensively last week in an article that went viral in days and caused multiple Anti Gun and Progressive News Groups to initiate a concentrated denial of service hacker attack...

Suggested scenario:
A woman has her home broken into and she is raped.
She is then told by the government social workers that counseling is available.
She avails herself of the counseling.
Now, she can’t obtain a firearm to protect herself because of the psych counseling, even though she should be the one most in need of a firearm for self protection.

8
posted on 04/10/2013 7:19:55 AM PDT
by BuffaloJack
(Gun Control is the Key to totalitarianism and genocide.)

The one responsibility people with mental illness have is to get it treated. Now they have one more reason to avoid it. They will have their rights taken away. Another example of a (not so) well-meaning law with (not so) unintended consequences.

10
posted on 04/10/2013 7:21:19 AM PDT
by BitWielder1
(Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)

As one who has gone toe to toe with the medical industry, I have come to the conclusion that HIPPA was more about protecting physicians, hospitals and medical device companies that it was about protecting the patient.

20
posted on 04/10/2013 7:32:02 AM PDT
by gov_bean_ counter
(Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,)

Ironically, probably the only thing this law will accomplish is to push a lot of current legal gun owners “under the table” because what the government doesn't know you own, they can't come and take, so there is really no benefit to doing it buy the book. That it why just about every shopowner and taxi cab driver in the city was a handgun even though, by the book, it is darn near impossible to own one.

I'm guessing the whole purpose of HIPPA was to criminalize "outing" of people who are HIV+, or the rehab status of celebrities, by people who saw their medical info. The government never intended it to be a barrier to their own power.

Now you know why ObamaCare wants all medical records in a database.

24
posted on 04/10/2013 7:38:33 AM PDT
by PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)

They have been inventing new forms of mental problems for years and handing out drugs to schoolchildren like candy so I guess none of these children will be able to have rights when the’re adults. And Obamacare will make sure it’s all in one’s records. I’m sure that some of these kids do need help but I’ve known some kids that are just active, curious, normal kids and the teachers would rather have them drugged down than have to deal with them.

“HIPAAExceptions Providing Law Enforcement Officials and Social Service Providers Access to Protected Health Information
Alexandra Podrid1

The new Privacy Rule, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and amended by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) in 2002, may affect the ability of prosecutors, police officers and social service agencies to administer child abuse cases, because it prevents certain health care affiliates from disclosing protected health information.

HIPAA was created to provide extensive, nationwide protection to medical information by regulating how covered entities use and disclose protected health information.2 Covered entities include health plans, health care clearinghouses and any health care provider that transmits health information electronically.3 Congress established HIPAA to enable people to switch jobs without losing their health insurance, and not to interfere with law enforcement or social services. The civil and criminal penalties attached to HIPAA violations,4 however, may deter covered entities from disclosing protected health information, even when they are authorized to do so.

DHHS enacted a number of exceptions that allow covered entities to provide protected health information to law enforcement officials and social service agencies. It is imperative that law enforcement officials familiarize themselves with these regulations, so that they can continue to obtain indispensable medical evidence to effectively investigate and prosecute child abuse cases. Social service providers must also comprehend the HIPAA exceptions so that they may continue to serve victims of abuse, neglect and domestic violence. This article maps the exceptions law enforcement officials and social service agencies can utilize when requesting protected health information from covered entities.

Exceptions for Law Enforcement Access

There are a number of exceptions that permit law enforcement officials to access protected health information. These exceptions bypass the requirement that the individual consent or be given an opportunity to decide whether his or her protected health information will be disclosed.

Required by law/mandatory reporting laws: A covered entity may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials if it is required to do so by law.5 An example would be a state law mandating the reporting of certain wounds or other physical injuries.

As permitted by a judicial officer: Law enforcement officials may obtain protected health information from a covered entity if they have a court order, warrant, subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer or a grand jury subpoena.6

Restricted access for administrative requests: An administrative subpoena may be used to obtain protected health information. In order to use an administrative subpoena, however, the following criteria must be met: 1) The information sought must be relevant and material to a legitimate investigation, 2) the request must be specific and limited in scope to meet its intended purpose, and 3) information that does not reveal the individuals identity could not reasonably be substituted for the information sought.7

Restricted access for the purpose of identifying or locating a suspect: Except for disclosures required by law, information provided to law enforcement officials for the purpose of identifying or locating a suspect, fugitive, material witness or missing person is limited. In response to such a request, a covered entity may disclose 1) name and address, 2) date and place of birth, 3) social security number, 4) blood type, 5) type of injury, 6) date and time of treatment, 7) date and time of death if applicable and 8) description of distinguishing physical characteristics.8 When the information sought is for identification and location purposes, a covered entity may not provide any information related to an individuals DNA or DNA analysis, dental records or analysis of body fluids or tissue.9

Victims of a crime: Health care entities may also provide law enforcement officials with an individuals protected health information if the individual is a suspected victim of a crime.10 In such cases, covered entities can only disclose information if 1) the individual agrees to disclosure, or 2) the covered entity cannot obtain the individuals agreement because of incapacity or an emergency.11 In cases of incapacity or emergency, it is necessary that 1) the law enforcement official represents that such information is needed to determine whether a crime was committed by someone other than the individual and will not be used against the victim, 2) the law enforcement official represents that law enforcement activity depends on disclosure and would be materially affected by waiting for the individuals consent, and 3) the covered entity, while exercising professional judgment, determines that disclosure is in the best interest of the individual.12

Decedents: If a health care provider suspects that an individual has died as a result of criminal conduct, it may disclose protected health information about the decedent to a law enforcement official.13

Crime on premises: If a covered entity believes in good faith that protected health information is evidence of criminal conduct that occurred on the premises of the covered entity, it may disclose the information to a law enforcement official.14

Reporting crime in emergencies: A health care provider rendering emergency medical care off the premises may disclose protected health information to a law enforcement official if the disclosure is needed to alert law enforcement to 1) the commission and nature of a crime, 2) the location or victims of such crime, and 3) the identity, description and location of the perpetrator.15 This exception does not apply if the covered health care provider believes the emergency is a result of abuse, neglect or domestic violence.16

Victims of abuse, neglect or domestic violence: A covered entity that believes an individual has been the victim of abuse may disclose the individuals protected health information to a government agency that is authorized by law to receive reports of abuse, neglect or domestic violence. Such disclosures are only permitted if at least one of the following applies: 1) the disclosure is required by law, 2) the individual has agreed to the disclosure, 3) the covered entity is expressly authorized by law to disclose such information and the disclosure is necessary to prevent serious harm to someone, and 4) the covered entity is expressly authorized by law to disclose such information and the law enforcement agency represents both that the information will not be used against the individual and that law enforcement activity would be significantly hindered by waiting to get the individuals consent.17 In these cases, the covered entity must promptly inform the individual that the disclosure was made, unless 1) informing the individual would place the individual at risk of serious harm or 2) the covered entity would be informing the individuals personal representative who is responsible for the abuse, neglect or domestic violence.18

Averting a serious threat to health or safety: A covered entity may disclose protected health information if it believes: 1) the disclosure is needed to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of a person or the public, and the recipient is able to lessen the threat; or 2) the disclosure is critical to law enforcements ability to identify or apprehend an individual who either appears to have escaped from the custody of law enforcement or made a statement admitting participation in a violent crime.19 A covered entity acting on such a belief is presumed to be acting in good faith. An entity covered by HIPAA may not disclose protected health information based on an individuals admitted participation in a violent crime if the statement was made either during therapy, counseling or treatment aimed at lessening the individuals propensity towards violence, or through a request for such therapy, counseling or treatment. The protected health information that may be disclosed under this exception is subject to the same limitations as placed on the exception made for identifying and locating a suspect.20

Jails, prisons, law enforcement custody: Correctional institutions and law enforcement officials may obtain the protected health information of individuals in their lawful custody. In such cases, however, a covered entity may only disclose information if the requesting body represents that the protected health information is necessary: 1) to provide health care to the individual, 2) to protect the health and safety of the individual or other inmates, 3) to protect the health and safety of officers, employees or others at the correctional institution, 4) to protect those involved in the transfer or transporting of the individual, 5) to promote law enforcement on the premises of the correctional institution, or 6) to maintain and administer safety, security and good order in the correctional facility.21 An individual is not subject to this exception when released on parole, probation, supervised release, or otherwise is no longer in lawful custody.

Funny how the drugs are imune from discussion. These drugs appear to turn people into homicidal maniacs (at least that is the unspoken meaning behind this), but we keep the drugs and just try to take firearms away from them.

I have said before that I think these mind-altering drugs are a problem. Americans will lose their right to be armed if this becomes a nation of crazies who cannot be trusted to be armed. It seems that some people want this to happen.

>>>Suggested scenario:
A woman has her home broken into and she is raped.
She is then told by the government social workers that counseling is available.
She avails herself of the counseling.
Now, she cant obtain a firearm to protect herself because of the psych counseling, even though she should be the one most in need of a firearm for self protection<<<

Good example. To make it even better, the rapist is still at large and has threatened to come back and kill her.

An abusive ex-boyfriend or ex-husband works as well.

Also, if they are going to take away 2nd Amendment rights from citizens, simply because they are on anti-anxiety medication, I think we should ban all those who are currently on, or who have ever taken such meds for being elected officials, appointed government officials, law enforcement officers, judges, public school teachers, etc. or from having any government jobs whatsoever.

If taking anti-anxiety meds makes somone “crazy” enough to not be allowed legal access to guns, they certainly shouldn’t have access to our children, our government or our freedom.

Regardless of any laws, short of locking them up, we cannot prevent a determined nutcase from getting guns. We can prevent them from teaching our children and running our government, etc., though.

36
posted on 04/10/2013 7:50:01 AM PDT
by Above My Pay Grade
(The people have the right to tell government what guns it may possess, not the other way around.)

It will also lead to many anxious or depressed legal gun owners refusing to seek any sort of counseling or treatment for fear of losing their right to keep and bear arms. This will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of many innocent people.

39
posted on 04/10/2013 7:53:43 AM PDT
by Above My Pay Grade
(The people have the right to tell government what guns it may possess, not the other way around.)

This is bad. In the ‘70s, they used to give out Valium like candy until they discovered the army of zombies they created so the newer benzos are more targeted but I bet their legal use will result in the loss of firearms privileges in NYC.

Suggest to a reporter that the 1st amendment needs updating for modern times and they act like it’s a holy sacrament. The 2nd amendment and the constitution,on the other hand, are ripe for ‘updating’

No cognitive dissonance there...

43
posted on 04/10/2013 7:56:28 AM PDT
by Lx
(Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)

Neither is the NYT... Article posted has links to other articles including one to an interview with a lawyer who is currently defending a client opposing the illegal seizure of his firearms under the new law.

Email address for said lawyer is included. Feel free to contact him for us and get the straight scoop.

Once the government sets “regulation” (in the form of permits, taxes, fees, etc.) of private property, they assume ownership of said property. The citizen then possess that property at the whim of the regulator.

Since we, The People, have sheepishly acquiesced our 4th Amendment rights regarding these regulatory “takings”, we have lost all claim to “property under rule and regulation”.

information provided by health care providers and NOT on the findings of a judge.

It struck me a few weeks ago how the new vernacular is "health care provider" rather than doctor. Could they be prepping the people with this new term because of the inevitable doctor shortages that we'll be facing soon?

50
posted on 04/10/2013 8:09:59 AM PDT
by Las Vegas Ron
(Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.